Talk:Time

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Cscr-former.svg Time is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Time (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Time, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Time on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Physics (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Astronomy (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon Time is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Mathematics (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject Mathematics
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Mathematics rating:
C Class
Top Importance
 Field: General
One of the 500 most frequently viewed mathematics articles.
WikiProject Psychology (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Measurement (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Measurement, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Measurement on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.5 / Vital / Core
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.

Timeframe[edit]

Timeframe and time frame redirect here, but the article doesn't explain the concept. IMO we should either add a section explaining what a timeframe is, or point the redirect to a page which actually explains the topic (such as Wiktionary:Time Frame). -- Gordon Ecker, WikiSloth (talk) 06:49, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Web time[edit]

JavaScript's internal clock starts at 1 January 1970 00:00:00.[1] This can be shown with the getTime()function.

Is this going to be added to the page?

Blehmann1 (talk) 16:18, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I have removed it per wp:unsourced and wp:original research. Please provide wp:reliable sources for such content. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 18:47, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Error about the defenetions about a year[edit]

It appears that a year actually lasts 365.25 days, or 365 days and six hours. The infomation on this page about a common year is incorrect since it said it lasts only 365 days and to tell the truth, leap years does not exist. The reason that people say that leap years exist because that they forgot to count the remaining 6 hours of the year, and since full days are easier to count, they put a leap year every 4 years(24÷4=6). Please add your thoughts in the section below about if you agree or object this edit.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerry.y.ma (talkcontribs) 01:47, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I believe that you are confusing the common year's duration (365 days) with the length of a Julian astronomical year (365.25 days). Dustin (talk) 01:56, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
The common year is defined as having 365 days, whereas the leap year is defined as having 366 days, as you can verify in the articles. Note that the Julian year is defined as having 365.25 days, as you can also see in the article Year. I have added the Julian year to the article. - DVdm (talk) 08:36, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Religion[edit]

Under Religion, I have restored the edits for now per WP:RELEVANCE and removed any unreliable/online sources while keeping the text sources.. 71.82.112.140 (talk) 14:51, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I have put standard citation templates in place—with missing page parameters. Please provide the exact pages on which we can verify the content? Thanks. - DVdm (talk) 15:12, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't remember the exact pages and can't for the life of me refind those claims. Fortunately, after a lengthy, nearly unpromising google search, I found another text source which should come in useful for this claim. Please see Alef, Mem, Tau: Kabbalistic Musings on Time, Truth, and Death - Page 111 - states "...but time should in fact be thought of as an illusion..." 71.82.112.140 (talk) 16:32, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I replaced the source. On the other hand, a search for time being a "paradox" in the first book results in nothing. Are you sure about that one? - DVdm (talk) 17:22, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
For one example of time being described as paradoxical in a similar fashion to this claim, please take into account A Rational Mystical Ascent: The Coincidence of Opposites in Kabbalistic and Hasidic Thought - which states "...To this we might add the paradoxes of time, for example, that the present is both completely distinct from yet imbued with the past and the future..." 71.82.112.140 (talk) 03:52, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Do we have something that is not self-published, preferably a wp:secondary source? - DVdm (talk) 08:12, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
There is something published by Johns Hopkins University found here which states, "...Taken together, these two passages sum up the strange paradox of time: it is both inexorably ubiquitous, yet also maddeningly difficult to talk about..." There is also a list of paradoxes on Wikipedia, which (listed under Mysticism, not Time) includes Tzimtzum, or "how to reconcile self-awareness of finite Creation with Infinite Divine Source". See also: Temporal finitism (or the idea that time is finite) and temporal paradox (or time paradox) - which might be worth mentioning.
For additional sources in support of this claim, Scientific American published an article entitled The Paradox of Time: Why It Can't Stop, But Must, and Boston University/Lawrence Erlbaum Associates also published one called The Paradox of Time. These particular sources should be somewhat more helpful than something self-published on a Kabbalah website, on time as a "paradox". However, I wish they had made the same claims about the past, present, and future in Kabbalah. Nevertheless, I still think it is safe to say that in some religious aspects, especially in Kabbalah, time can be viewed as paradoxical and illusionary.
Side note: Although these scholarly, secondary sources seem more reliable, two of them don't appear to bluntly mention Kabbalah at all (excluding the Johns Hopkins page which has links to Kabbalah books in the sidebar), so they might be useless in support of this claim. Please see The Kabbalah of the Soul: The Transformative Psychology and Practices of Jewish Mysticism, which, on page 126, states, "...The paradox of the future altering the past is also seen to be an illusion..." Also, refer to the book listed above (Alef, Mem, Tau: Kabbalistic Musings on Time, Truth, and Death) which also mentions on page 132, the application of the "paradox of time" to Kabbalistic symbolism. It has been proven difficult to find very many additional sources on this specific claim in particular, but I think we have a little bit more to work with now. 71.82.112.140 (talk) 13:52, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, insufficiently interested to bother checking :-) - DVdm (talk) 09:15, 27 July 2014 (UTC)